| 摘要: | 在十八世紀的法國畫壇中，夏爾丹無疑是一位特殊的畫家。他在學院中的位置、繪 畫事業的轉變、十八世紀評論者對其的評價觀點，乃至當代研究者對其藝術在繪畫史上 地位的建構，這幾個不同脈絡所顯示的矛盾，引發這篇論文最初的好奇。本文的首要工 作是找出一個能解釋其藝術本質的一貫性，並嘗試解決上述不同面向間的斷裂。 因此，這本論文試圖透過十八世紀的當代藝術評論，重新認識並評價夏爾丹的靜物 畫。而在眾多評論者中，無論是十九世紀的評論者或是當代學術研究，當將狄德羅的評 論視為理解夏爾丹藝術與建構夏爾丹歷史地位的重要資料，這些資料一方面作為研究者 的佐證，一方面也跟著繪畫成為被建構的對象。對本文而言，欲重新發掘夏爾丹作品的 性質、重新定位他的藝術，必須一併重新理解並評價狄德羅的評論。同時，透過對狄德 羅評論的分析，將關注的焦點從對畫面性質的直接分析，轉移至討論藝術形式與「觀者」 之間所形成的特定關係，以求有效發掘出夏爾丹作品的形式特質。藉此，本文一方面希 望探究夏爾丹藝術在當時如何被接受與解讀，另一方面也欲指出十八世紀觀者如何開發 回應夏爾丹藝術形式的語言。 本文將狄德羅的評論區分為兩個主要觀點：繪畫中的逼真幻象與畫家技法。針對前 者，因為受到經驗主義的影響，狄德羅認可並提高了原本在學院古典理論中價值較低的 「幻象」地位，並在此基礎上發展新的觀看經驗。此觀看經驗正相應於狄德羅進對夏爾 丹作品技法性的發掘。在這個脈絡中狄德羅的觀點由「藝術」作為自然複製或透明幻象， 轉移至藝術作為「再現」。而於此過程中，狄德羅拋棄舊有的論述框架，審美對象逐漸 擴張並轉移至繪畫的固有性質以及繪畫實作的手工層面，同時發掘相應於此，屬於直觀 的觀看模式與評論語言。 最後，本文認為，狄德羅的評論以及評論所相應的繪畫特質及觀看模式，兩者皆有 其法國傳統中的前例，且這些分享類似性質的文化/藝術脈絡皆以相對於哲學或藝術上 「義大利」傳統的形式出現。顯示法國繪畫在歷史發展上，與其所承襲的其他傳統—諸 如義大利與北方法蘭德斯—的相對性。在藝術史發展的光譜上，若義大利傳統代表著理 性、心智、精神、線條等可納入言說架構的事物，則相對於此的便是感性、感官、物質、 色彩等無法納入言說架構的事物。夏爾丹的藝術與洛可可，以它們皆反映與後者相關的 繪畫模式與觀看關係而言，是屬於相對於義大利傳統的「法國傳統」。而正是因為夏爾 丹一方面繼承洛可可的審美性質，一方面則以自然為觀察對象；以視覺經驗為憑藉將之 轉譯在二維平面上，使得夏爾丹的藝術在法國繪畫的發展中，扮演一關鍵性的角色。 Among numerous painters in eighteenth century France, Chardin is Undoubtedly an unique figure. There are some contradictions between his status in Academy, his several shifts on the choices of subject matter during his career, the way by which critics at that time assessed his painting and his position in French tradition of painting which is still under construction by art historians. However, it is those contradictions of different contexts mentioned above evoke the initial curiosity of this thesis. Therefore, the main effort of this thesis is try to find out a kind of coherence explainable for the nature of Chardin’s art and to resolve the complicated contradictions just mentioned. For this reason, this thesis tries to re-evaluate the still life of Chardin by analyzing the art criticisms in eighteenth century. Among those critics, via the discussion of commentators of nineteenth century and art historians of twentieth century, Diderot’s criticisms are adopted as not only the important sources for understanding the art of Chardin but also the materials for constructing his historical position. Thus, this thesis aims to re-interpret Diderot’s criticism in order to re-discover the quality of Chardin’s works and to re-place his art. Meanwhile, by doing so, the main concern of this study is transferred from the direct discussion of Chardin’s painting surface to analyze the specific relationship between the artistic form and the audience. This thesis attempts to investigate in which way Chardin’s art has been accepted and interpreted at his time on one hand, and indicate how the critical language which responds to Chardin’s artistic style has been developed by audience of eighteenth century on the other. Diderot’s position to Chardin’s art drawing from criticism can be considered in two way: trompe-l’oeil and the technicity of painting. As to the former, because of the influence from empiricism, Diderot legitimatised and raised the status of illusion, which used to be devaluated in the classical theory of Academy, and then developed a new kind of visual experience of looking at his still life. However, this new looking experience corresponds to his discovery of the technicity from Chardin’s works. In this context, Diderot’s viewpoint shifts from art as a natural replica or transparent illusion, to art as representation. During this process, the object of aesthetic activity expands and transfers to the inherent qualities of painting and the manual aspect of artistic practice. Moreover, Diderot also detects the intuitive looking pattern and critical rhetoric appropriate to his experience. Finally, this study retraces Diderot’s criticism, the quality of Chardin’s painting, the looking pattern which corresponds his criticism back to the French cultural tradition and find out that there are precedents which possess similar qualities and can be regarded as examples opposite to Italian tradition. Therefore, it reveals the relativity of French painting tradition to the other traditions it inherits—the Italian and the Flemish tradition for example. On the spectrum of art history, if the Italian tradition presents those related to discourse, such as reason, mind, spirit and lines etc, then, their oppositions are those excluded from discourse, such as sensation, sense, material and color etc. Since the art of Chardin and Rococo both demonstrate the artistic pattern and looking relationship related to the latter, they belongs to the French tradition which is opposite to Italian tradition. Hence, Chardin inherits the aesthetic qualities of Rococo on one hand, he also takes nature as an object of observation, and translates his visual experience to two-dimensional plane on the other. That’s the reason that Chardin’s art plays a crucial role in the historical development of French painting. J.B.S Chardin, Denis Diderot, Still life, Art criticism, Salons, Tradition of French painting |
